Precarity, American-Style: Causative Factors

Today's post is a continuation of my series of posts on the subject of precarity.  Today's post will be rather short, since I don't have much time.  However, when considering the state of precarity in which an increasing number of people in the United States now live, it is helpful to study the occupational and economic factors which have led to our present troubles.  As we study economic precarity in the United States, we should therefore consider the following factors:

• The decline of small businesses in the U.S.  This has been due to "the tilting of the playing field to favor massive companies over small businesses," as reported in a 2020 article by Business Insider.  (See also "Monopoly Power And The Decline of Small Business" for a 2016 snapshot of the problem.)  Note that the laws passed by the U.S. Congress and the executive orders issued under the Trump administration only made this worse.  However, the Biden administration has begun taking steps to reverse small business decline by helping small businesses compete for Federal work, as reported by the Federal News Network in a 2023 article.

• The shifting of tax burdens from the rich to the poor.  A striking case in point is the number of states (red states, particularly) whose legislatures and governors have turned them into tax havens for the rich.  (See also, "How the Ultrawealthy Devise Ways to Not Pay Their Share of Taxes," NPR, August 2022.)  Thus these states have come to resemble enclaves of dirty money that are found in the Cayman Islands.  Note that the U.S has recently surpassed the Caymans to become the "world's biggest enabler of financial secrecy" as reported by the international Consortium of Investigative Journalists in May 2022.  But these are merely one part of the overall shift of tax burdens away from the rich which began in the 1980's under Ronald Reagan.

• The use of monopoly and oligopoly power to create monopsony and oligopsony labor markets.  We all know that a monopoly is a state in which there is only one supplier of a particular good or service which is needed by many buyers.  The monopolist can therefore charge whatever price he wants, even if the price is horribly unfair.  Oligopoly is the condition in which there is more than one supplier, yet the total number of suppliers is very small.  Examples of oligopoly include Airbus and Boeing among aircraft manufacturers, or Microsoft and Brave and Alphabet (owner of Google) among Internet search providers, or CVS and Walgreens and Rite-Aid among drugstores and pharmacies.  A monopsony, by contrast, is a situation in which there is only one buyer of a good or service which is offered by many suppliers.  An example of this is a situation in which there is only one employer who can offer jobs to people in a large geographical area.  Thus the many people in this area become horribly dependent on the one large employer, and if that employer uses his power maliciously or suddenly goes out of business or decides suddenly to cut costs, many people will be devastated.  Oligopsony works the same way.  Monopsony and oligopsony are the natural outcome of monopoly and oligopoly.

• The shifting of regulatory burdens from large businesses to small businesses.  A prime example of this is the case of trying to use your own personal car to earn money by giving people rides.  Most cities and states have laws that prevent you from doing this as a private individual.  In this case, there are only two legal ways you can earn money by giving people rides: go to work for a taxi company, or become an "independent contractor" for a multibillion-dollar ride-hailing service such as Uber or Lyft.  The regulatory burden on these ride-hailing services is very small, as seen in the cases of ride-hailing drivers who are injured on the job, or passengers who are sometimes assaulted by the ride-hailing drivers.  Regulatory burdens are now crafted by state and local legislators for the purpose of expanding opportunities for big businesses by smothering small businesses who can't afford the costs of regulatory compliance.

• The innovation-depressing strategies of big businesses.  It can be argued that once a monopoly or oligopoly economy is established, the big players in such an economy will tend to fear innovation, since innovations can be disruptive and can even destroy the pre-existing monopoly or oligopoly arrangement.  Thus it is no surprise that large businesses (and wanna-be large business owners) have evolved egregious strategies to stifle any potential innovations that might threaten their interests.  One such strategy is the misuse of the "non-compete agreement."  These are agreements which employees force new hires to sign, in which the new hire typically agrees not to work for any other business or start their own business within a certain time frame and within a certain geographical area.  Certain versions of these non-compete agreements also force the employee to give up all rights to any invention or intellectual product which the employee may devise while employed by his employer and for a certain time period after the employee stops working for the employer.  (If you work for such an employer, I can understand why you would not be motivated to think very much while on the job!)  The abuse of non-compete clauses in employment contracts has moved the Biden administration to start taking steps to ban them (see this also), which should provide immediate relief from employers who want to try to turn their employees into personal property.

Future posts in this series will examine these factors in more detail, along with other factors such as the absence of single-payer health care coverage in the U.S.  But for now, consider these factors as the means by which the wealthy in this country seek to prevent the American precariat from building individual and collective self-reliance.